O.P.P officers avoid instant penalties!

This a Bleeping Joke and is a smack in the face to anyone whos been charged with HTA 172!

One wonders what loophole was used to avoid the siezure and suspensions that every other "Damn Street Racer"gets when charged under HTA 172!

Just one more nail in the coffin for the Commissioner in my opinion!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/ ... acing.html

2 OPP OFFICERS AVOID INSTANT PENALTIES after being charged under street-racing law Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino says it won't happen again!

'The law is equal to all and so is accountability and I think it shows that we mean business,' says OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino. (Nathan Denette/Canadian Press) Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino has said repeatedly that drivers who go 50 km/h over the speed limit will have their car seized on the spot and their licence suspended for seven days — with no exceptions.

But there were two exceptions, and both were OPP officers.

Const. Michael Deyell and Const. Lloyd Tapp are the only two police officers charged under Ontario's street-racing laws. Both were on-duty, in marked cars, and charged by their colleagues.

It's alleged Deyell was driving at 60 km/h over the speed limit in December 2007. His cruiser slammed into two horses, killing them. Deyell himself was injured and sent to hospital.

Tapp is accused of driving his cruiser 50 km/h over the limit in March — and was clocked by an OPP colleague.

Under the new legislation, both officers should have had their licences and cars seized but that didn't happen.

Fantino said that was a mistake.

"The law is equal to all and so is accountability and I think it shows that we mean business," he said.

"We're not playing favourites here. I mean, people know what the rules of the road are and I think that we have to be transparent. We have to be consistent and we have to be fair."

Since new street-racing legislation came into effect last year, police have trumpeted the fact they've charged nearly 8,000 drivers.

OPP Const. Dave Woodford said the law will be applied equally from now on.

"I was with Commissioner Fantino over the weekend when he did say that they were looking at it differently. That the vehicles would be parked for seven days and that the officers' licenses would be suspended," said Woodford.

"If this were to be repeated again, there would be a different outcome, I assure you," said Fantino.

Tapp is on administrative duty, while Deyell is recovering and is expected to return to duty shortly.

Both men have trials set for the fall.

Will be posting a letter I recieved from a A.L Howe back in June

Superintendent Commander,Corporate Comminications Bureau.

Police cars are exempt from being impounded. But they should've had their licence suspended, if they did not.

I say lights on, giver bullets officer. However, if the officer is going "stealth" then there should be limits on their speeds.

There is more to just HTA that we have to worry about. We have to follow the police services act as well of a vast array of internal policies.

What a surprise, I bet officer Tapp is thankful for having his day in court!

Unlike any other person charged under this cash grab, you're bent over on the side road, property siezed, license suspendid, fees and more fees!

Is one of these officers lying or is it all just one big misunderstanding?

OPP officer cleared of stunt-driving charge

Racism behind allegation, constable says

Posted By GALEN EAGLE, EXAMINER COURT WRITER

Peterborough County OPP Const. Lloyd Tapp was found not guilty yesterday on charges of stunt driving and careless driving.

The 43-year-old officer had strong words for the fellow officer who made the allegations against him and those that investigated the case.

"Like I have been saying all along, the whole charge was a crock of lies," Tapp said. "The evidence you have heard today in court is a clear indication of the shoddy investigations of the Ontario Provincial Police."

Questioning why charges were laid against him, Tapp said he is a visible minority who has made four claims to the Ontario Human Rights Commission against the OPP since 2005.

"One might ask then, why were charges laid when such a strong prima facie case existed with a lack of evidence to even substantiate a charge?" he said. "What the public has heard today in court, the public should take heed to the type of so-called professional investigations and integrity of investigations by OPP."

Tapp was charged April 8 with driving at least 50 km/h over the speed limit and careless driving on Highway 115 in Cavan Monaghan Township on March 25.

Tapp was one of several Peterborough County OPP officers who agreed to provide security detail at Queen's Park during the release of the provincial budget March 25, court heard.

OPP Const. Brenda Donnelly travelled with Tapp to Toronto in a marked cruiser, she testified. The two left the Peterborough detachment at about 3:37 a. m. and arrived in Toronto for briefing at about 4:45 a. m., she said.

En route to Toronto, Donnelly said Tapp was driving 180 km/h along Highway 115, between 140 to 160 km/h on the 401 and was obeying the speed limit on the Don Valley Parkway.

"We started going fast, excessive speeds," she told court. "The speedometer was pointing in my direction ... it was at the 180 km/h mark. We travelled that speed for quite a ways, most of the 115."

Donnelly said she didn't say anything to Tapp because she had to work with him for the rest of the day. She made a formal police statement six days later, court heard.

Defence lawyer William MacKenzie questioned why Donnelly didn't stop Tapp if he was driving at such speeds.

"On your evidence, you sat there quietly while a member of the police service broke the law. You failed to uphold your duties as a sworn officer, correct," MacKenzie asked.

"Yes, yes I did," Donnelly replied.

Tapp testified he wasn't paying attention to the speedometer but was going with the flow of traffic. He said he would never drive at such "ridiculous" speeds.

"Personally, it's against my code of ethics to travel at that speed," Tapp testified.

MacKenzie argued Donnelly was a poor witness who didn't take any notes of the incident. Her testimony also diverged from her police statement, court heard. She told police Tapp travelled 180 km/h the entire way to Toronto, MacKenzie noted.

Given the 134 kilometres between the detachment and Queen's Park and the timeline Donnelly provided, MacKenzie said Tapp couldn't have driven more than 50 km/h over the speed limit.

"The mathematics don't lie here," MacKenzie said.

Justice of the peace Douglas Clark ruled the Crown did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.c...aspx?e=1290712

I'm concerned as to why the Cst. Donnelley did not say anything to Tapp while he was allegedly driving an OPP cruiser at 180 km/h on a dark country road (lots of wildlife), then turned him in SIX DAYS later. If 180 km/h is really that dangerous, she should have said something right then and there. Same concept applies to my line of work: Someone's doing something unsafe, you don't just sit there and say nothing, you're OBLIGATED to speak up and stop it. Doesn't matter if you have to "work with" the guy for the next few hours or days.

Tapp was found not guilty. Fine. Crown didn't prove it's case.

Section 172 is a travesty. I have little faith that the politicians in Queen's Park will change it. They can't admit to being wrong. A new government or the courts might reverse it. Chris Bentley and Dalton McGuinty have tried to justify it in the context of "saving lives." Wisconsin, New Jersey and Indiana, among others, have had similar fatality rate drops this year as Ontario but they aren't seizing cars. (Hmm... gas prices?)

Meanwhile, here's another incident to ponder. Don't know what happened, don't want to speculate too much, but makes you think...

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/ ... 74ccabc94d

Speed limit on Highway 3, where that incident happened, is 80 km/h.

I believe she was lying, but he was still speeding and received no ticket.

But think how poorply run the province is. They bring in cops from Peterborough. They spent 4 1/2 hours in salary just in return travel time for two officers. Then there was gas costs. Pathetic.

Had he not been speeding it would've cost taxpayers even more in salary just for travel time.

Radar Identified wrote:

I'm concerned as to why the Cst. Donnelley did not say anything to Tapp while he was allegedly driving an OPP cruiser at 180 km/h on a dark country road (lots of wildlife), then turned him in SIX DAYS later.

If this is the same Llyod Tapp who used to be the bouncer at the Alpine Motel on Kingston Road in the 80s, then not only would I not say anything while he was driving but I would update my will, get used to sleeping with my GLOCK under my pillow and buy a rottweiler before I reported him. I'm amazed Cst. Donnelly could get all that done in just six days.

On another note, this case, R. v. Araujo, 2008 ONCJ 507 was insightful. The defence did a terrible job, but of note halfway through is that the prosecution submitted a factum (which isn't printed) acknowledging that 172 is a strict liability offence. They state that this is a standard Crown response to Charter challenges. I'd like to see a copy of that. Anyone?

I haven't read it all yet but this is not a strict liability offence in any sense. The court is looking for excuses to keep this pathetic law alive.

Absolute liability generally applied to regulatory offences, such as speeding. R. v Sault Ste. Marie recognized the need for and existence of an intermediate category of strict liability offences for public welfare offences, such as environmental or equipment related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._City ... _Ste-Marie

http://canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1978/19 ... lii11.html

Strict lability offences are found in the Equipment Section under Part VI of the Act, and which regulates things such as lamps on vehicles; lighted streets; possession of red lights on vehicles; visibility of lights; brakes; windshield wipers; mirrors; speedometers; safety glass; mufflers; alarm bells; televisions in vehicles; and various others.

The justice in this case claims its the punishment that dictates whether or not it is a strict or absolute liability offence. What a dumbass. His ruling flies in the face of the Supreme Court case BC Motor Vehicle Act 1995.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1985/1 ... 2-486.html

If the punishment dictated which class of offence it was then the BC Motor Vehicle Act case wouldve been determined to be a strict liability offence because a term of imprisonment was attached. It was not a strict liability but an absolute liability offence.

Even if you look at the punishment language in s. 172(2) it states;

Offence

(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence...

This is not language depicting a due diligence defence offence. It depicts an absolute liability offence only allowing the accused to challenge the evidence; but does not allow the accused to provide a defence to the offence. You are guilty upon the act of committing the offence.

Courts have determined offences employing the "no person shall" or "every driver shall" formulation are interpreted as absolute liability offences: R. v. Hickey (1976), 13 O.R. (2d) 228. (speeding) R. v. Kurtzman (1991), 66 C.C.C. (3d) 161 at 172 (Ont. C.A.)-(failing to stop at a red light) and London (City) v. Polewsky (2005), 202 C.C.C. (3d) 257 (Ont. C.A. )-(speeding).

Section 172 states;

Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited

172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager.

Ms. Carter also incorrectly states that s. 128 provides for higher penalties than s. 172. Duh!

After declaring s. 172 to be a strict liability offence, the justice than failed to inquiry whether or not the driver had an excuse to be speeding, i.e., the due diligence defence, before imposing his punishment.

In the regulation for s. 172 it also uses the term marked departure. Sectio 2(2) expressly states;

(2) In this section,

"marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway.

If a driver can only be charged for a stunt when he's doing 50 kms over the speed limit, how can a driver be charged for racing or contest if he's doing less than 50 kph over?

A marked departure only applies to the race contest offence. Going 50 kms over is clearly a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, but the marked departure doesn't apply to he stunt offence.

Therefore, a marked departure indicates the race contest is a mens rea offence, not a strict liability offence as the justice incorrectly ruled. The race contest offence is no different han the street racing offence in the Criminal Code, which is also a mens rea offence.

The crown must prove the actus reus beyond a reasonble doubt and the mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

The stunt offence is an absolute liability offence and does not require mens rea or provide for a due diligence defence.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2008/2 ... 8scc5.html

Section 84 provides more evidence that when the Act articulates the "is guilty" or "are guilty" words ha it is an absolute liability offence.

Section 84 is an absolute liability offence and s. 5 clearly indicates this fact.

Offence if wheel detaches from commercial motor vehicle

84.1 (1) Where a wheel becomes detached from a commercial motor vehicle, or from a vehicle being drawn by a commercial motor vehicle, while the commercial motor vehicle is on a highway, the operator of the commercial motor vehicle and the owner of the vehicle from which the wheel became detached are guilty of an offence.

...

Absolute liability offence

(5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the person exercised due diligence to avoid or prevent the detaching of the wheel.

Strict liability offences under the Act deal with environmental issues; noise, smoke, etc., such as s. 75, which states;

75(4) A person having the control or charge of a motor vehicle shall not sound any bell, horn or other signalling device so as to make an unreasonable noise, and a driver of any motor vehicle shall not permit any unreasonable amount of smoke to escape from the motor vehicle, nor shall the driver at any time cause the motor vehicle to make any unnecessary noise, but this subsection does not apply to a motor vehicle of a municipal fire department while proceeding to a fire or answering a fire alarm call.

I have to agree that 172 it is poorly written.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj507.html

THE COURT: "I've got to tell you, that client should be here to see all of this careful and able work."

Hahahaha!

What a disgrace.

BelSlySTi wrote:

Tapp testified he wasn't paying attention to the speedometer but was going with the flow of traffic. He said he would never drive at such "ridiculous" speeds.

"Personally, it's against my code of ethics to travel at that speed," Tapp testified.

So the Crown calls an officer of the court (police officer) who testifies under oath that she witnessed excessive speeds by the defendant for an extended period of time. The defendant (also an officer of the court) states that he never looked at his speedo and was just moving with the flow of traffic.... AND IT WORKED??!!!

This is the same lame defense the majority of the speeding public uses and it NEVER works!!

Just when friends and family thought I was done bellyaching, I'm all fired up again <Grrrrrrr>!!

The Crown is taking a position that this is a strict liability offence. Given two witnesses, both officers with equal credibility (!), the default judgement is with the defendant who gave the classic strict liability defence.

lawmen wrote:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj507.html

THE COURT: "I've got to tell you, that client should be here to see all of this careful and able work."

Hahahaha!

What a disgrace.

I truly hope the judge was being sarcastic.

How could this be a Strict Liability offence? It's Speeding! If you sped, you're guilty, right? (no option for due diligence).

The witness was sitting right in the defendants vehicle observing the defendants speedometer. How could you get a more iron-clad case? OH WAIT, the defendant was a cop! That evens the playing field and all he has to do is deny any wrongdoing. No other citizen in this province would have that advantage. All this nonsense about time-line, lack of notes, and not stopping the driver immediately and having the very car the witness was riding in towed, is almost cartoon-like.

The bottom line is, one of these police officers outright LIED on the stand. The ruling made at trial would clearly indicate that Const. Brenda Donnelly fabricated the whole thing. Is she now going to be fired? Is she going to be required to receive psychological treatment for her apparent delusions? Will she not face a defamation case filed by Const. Tapp? I mean, clearly she's a complete f**kup right?? PFFFFT!! No doubt in my mind, Tapp lied.

I can't help but laugh when I look at Julian Fantino's pic with the underlying quote,

'The law is equal to all and so is accountability and I think it shows that we mean business,' says OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/ ... acing.html

What a farce!

Bookm wrote:

How could this be a Strict Liability offence? It's Speeding! If you sped, you're guilty, right? (no option for due diligence).

Check out the case that I cited above: R. v. Araujo, 2008 ONCJ 507. They are treating s172 as a strict liability offence!

Ahh yes. My bad. It's the potential for severe penalties that makes it Strict.

But this seems to fly in the face of the impoundment rules. How can a driver defend himself using a due diligence argument on the side of the road? Only the court can rule on such a defense, not an officer. It seems to me that this is the core problem with 172. To be punished on a Strict Liability offense BEFORE a proper trial is simply uncivilized.

Each of the following is an separate offences under the stunt definition. The court claims its a strict liability offence, meaning you have a due diligence defence.

How can one have a due diligence excuse for driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk? Ha!

How can one have a due diligence excuse for driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the drivers seat? Haha!

Para. 8 uses the same wording as careless driving on a road, on a sidewalk or on a snow machine. This is a mens rea offence under s. 130 of the HTA for a vehicle, under the TO Municpal Code for a bicycle, and under the Snow Vehicle Act for a snow machine.

All of the remaining sections of the stunt offence are careless driving offences, which are mens rea, not strict liability.

If a court and the crown cannot properly interpret the law then it is of no force and effect because a lay person would not understand it either.

Definition, "stunt"

3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.

3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.

4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.

5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.

6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the drivers seat.

7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

...

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 0455_e.htm

And quite frankly, those clauses that use the words "an intention to" are true crinimal offences. They should fall under dangerous driving under the Criminla Code.

How can one have a due diligence defence if the conduct committed was "an intention to"?

How can speeding over 50 kph be a strict liability offence under s. 172 when the same offence is an absolute liability offence under s. 128?

Bookm wrote:

Ahh yes. My bad. It's the potential for severe penalties that makes it Strict.

But this seems to fly in the face of the impoundment rules. How can a driver defend himself using a due diligence argument on the side of the road? Only the court can rule on such a defense, not an officer. It seems to me that this is the core problem with 172. To be punished on a Strict Liability offense BEFORE a proper trial is simply uncivilized.

It's not a strict liability offence. At all.

An offence of strict liability requires the minimal mental element of negligence in order to gain a conviction. Negligence consists in an unreasonable failure to know the facts which constitute the offence, or the failure to be duly diligent to take steps which a reasonable person would take. Since ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law, due diligence consists in taking steps to fulfil a duty imposed by law and not just be aware of the existence of a statutory prohibition or its interpretation.

Strict liabilty is an odd offence. One is innocent until proven guilty. One cannot be forced to be a witness against himself at trial. Yet the due diligence defence places the defence within the sole knowledge of the accused.

A strict liability offence is not permitted in crinimal law. Criminal offences have always required proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is not so with regulatory offences, where a conviction will lie if the accused has failed to meet the standard of care required. The HTA is quasi-crinimal. Regulatory offences were developed and recognized as a distinct category precisely for the purpose of relieving the Crown of the burden of proving mens rea. This is their hallmark.

Strict liabilty places a reverse burden on the accused. It is necessary to require them to show on a balance of probabilities that they took reasonable precautions to avoid the harm which actually resulted. It is a virtual impossibility of proving regulatory offences beyond a reasonable doubt and this was central to this Court's decision in R. v. Sault Ste. Marie.

In this doctrine it is not up to the prosecution to prove negligence. Instead, it is open to the defendant to prove that all due care has been taken. This burden falls upon the defendant as he is the only one who will have the means of proof.

This is not unfair as the alternative is absolute liability which denies an accused any defence whatever. While the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the prohibited act, the defendant must only establish on the balance of probabilities that he has a defence of reasonable care.

Therefore, the accused can produce an excuse without having to take the stand, which does not offend s. 11(c) of the Charter and the reverse burden does not offend 11(d) of the Charter.

But s. 172 is NOT a strict liability offence.

lawmen wrote:

After declaring s. 172 to be a strict liability offence, the justice than failed to inquiry whether or not the driver had an excuse to be speeding, i.e., the due diligence defence, before imposing his punishment.

I just re-read this case and need to make a crrection to my comment above because of Ms. Carter's statement:

MS. CARTER: I believe it'd be the Crown's submissions first as we're offering no defence evidence.

However, I will add this bizarre ruling from the Justice.

I know that the issue arises because of the fact that one of the possible forms of stunt in Section 172 is driving at a rate of speed greater than 50 kilometres per hour, but that is a distinct charge and offence from the charges set out in Section 128.

How are they distinct?

Both s. 128 and s. 172 have an offence for going 50 kph over the speed limit. They are the same offence and not distinct at all.

lawmen wrote:

MS. CARTER: I believe it'd be the Crown's submissions first as we're offering no defence evidence.

Lawmen: you just don't get it. Charter rights are so 1990s. This is Ontario 2008: Roll-over. Play dead. Good defendant.

Haha!

I'm not the submissive type.

This is the only s. 172 case I've seen posted. Apparantly there are thousands of them yet they refuse to post them. I wonder why...

4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.

Where was that question about speeding while passing???

Apparantly there are thousands of them yet they refuse to post them. I wonder why...

Oh, I don't know, seizing someone's lawfully-owned property without recourse or appeal available as de-facto intended punishment is grossly unconstitutional (among other things)? Apparently violating your rights is okay if you exceed the posted speed limit in Ontario (YOU MONSTER!!!), but if you're an arsonist, murder, kidnapper, etc., no, your rights have to be protected. (Not saying rights DON'T have to be protected but violating them for a traffic offence?!)

Some US states have serious penalties for excessive speeding. Arizona: 25 MPH over = jail time. Virginia: 20 MPH over = JAIL TIME. California: "exhibition of speed" = possible jail time and PERMANENT confisciation of your vehicle!!! Difference? Oh yeah, all of that is AFTER you get convicted!

The US only has two class of offences, strict and mens rea, while Canada has three, strict, absolute and mens rea.

A term of imprisonment can be attached to a strict liability offence. The US offfences are strict liability with attached prison time, while in Canada speeding is an absolute liability offence where a term of imprisonment attached to the offence violates s. 7 of the Charter.

And cops are not seizing cars here, they are stealing them.

ticketcombat wrote:

lawmen wrote:

MS. CARTER: I believe it'd be the Crown's submissions first as we're offering no defense evidence.

Lawmen: you just don't get it. Charter rights are so 1990s. This is Ontario 2008: Roll-over. Play dead. Good defendant.

lawmen wrote:

Haha!

I'm not the submissive type.

This is the only s. 172 case I've seen posted. Apparently there are thousands of them yet they refuse to post them. I wonder why...

Good point TC. A judge cannot make the charges stick to a dead person. A friend of mine got off DUI because his BAC was over the legally dead limit (back in the days of early detectors, when a penny in a mouth would send it's reading through the roof, then he refused the blood test, and no-one could make him because he blew already). The judge couldn't stick the charges to him because he was legally dead...

lawmen wrote:

Each of the following is an separate offences under the stunt definition. The court claims its a strict liability offence, meaning you have a due diligence defence.

Para. 8 uses the same wording as careless driving on a road, on a sidewalk or on a snow machine. This is a mens rea offence under s. 130 of the HTA for a vehicle, under the TO Municpal Code for a bicycle, and under the Snow Vehicle Act for a snow machine.

All of the remaining sections of the stunt offence are careless driving offences, which are mens rea, not strict liability.

Hmmm, I always relied upon R. v. Hundal to support that careless driving was a mens rea offence.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/199 ... ii120.html

But the case below from Manitoba seems to pick my theory apart and it claims careless driving is a strict liability offence because it is not criminal, like dangerous driving is, in Hundal.

http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbpc/doc/20 ... 17868.html

Therefore, careless driving might be a strict liability offence on its own, but in any event, I still believe the offence listed under clause 8 of the regulation regarding s. 172 are mens rea offences because the wording "an intention to" is used.

These words indicate intent, and if you intend on doing something you are not committing a strict liability offence with a due diligence excuse, you are committing an intentional act and mens rea must be proven.

A term of imprisonment can be attached to a strict liability offence. The US offfences are strict liability with attached prison time, while in Canada speeding is an absolute liability offence where a term of imprisonment attached to the offence violates s. 7 of the Charter.

My point was that US states are applying penalties, even some fairly heavy ones, but they're all post-conviction. That's fine. You get your day in court. Ontario is imposing up-front irrevocable, unappealable penalties on the accused, for a traffic violation.